• S P Ringel, B G Vickrey, C M Keran, J Bieber, and W G Bradley.
• Department of Neurology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver 80262, USA. steven.ringel@uchsc.edu
• Neurology. 2000 Jan 25;54(2):480-4.

ObjectiveTo address training demands on future neurologists, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) surveyed its US members as to their views about training the future neurology workforce.MethodsThe survey was mailed to 575 US neurologists and 425 residents/fellows. Respondents (54%) were asked about their perceptions of current and future educational programs and settings needed to improve practice competence; issues related to subspecialization; and the role of non-neurologists in providing neurologic care. Views of neurologists were compared with those of neurology residents/fellows.ResultsMost respondents support additional training in outpatient, community, and staff model health maintenance organization settings. The majority of respondents oppose a required fifth year of training or a yearly competency examination, but neurologists who have a subspecialty interest and residents/fellows favor elective certification and higher fees by subspecialists. General neurologists oppose these ideas. Most neurologists feel that primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants can manage uncomplicated neurologic problems, although residents/fellows are less willing to accept the role of nonphysician providers for neurologic services.ConclusionsNeurology educational programs should consider addressing deficiencies that today's practitioners perceive. Increasing subspecialization, although favored by most neurologists, creates a challenge for the neurologic community as neurologists without subspecialty training see this trend as a threat to their livelihood.

28 keywords...

hide…